At present, this idea has met an obstacle in the face of Stratasys, manufacturer of 3D-printers, which terminated the contract with the leasing Wiki Weapons, citing a clause of the contract, which allows the company to terminate the use of printers for illegal purposes. Although Wiki Weapons activists say they are not going to deal in guns, it will claim a license, and the project to commercial activity in general is not connected, question legal production of firearms by this method as before remains open. This whole situation, regardless of the case to the project Wiki Weapons, perfectly illustrates the processes taking place in the world where information can now simply be transformed into physical objects, many of which (such as firearms tool) To get free traffic should not.
"This gives rise to an unlimited number of fascinating questions," says M. Weinberg, a lawyer in the field of mental Facilities, web and digital technologies. "In the future, many times we hear stories about people who zahochut do different things with the notable help of 3D-printing. The main question is whether this could be before the emergence of 3D-printing? If it is not, then the creation of 3D-printer fundamentally changed the nature. But it seems to me that all this is not so. " This Michael virtually all experts agree.
"Actually, the instrument can be done with completely ordinary machines — says K. Walsh, a researcher at the Berkman Center at Harvard. Not being a professional in controlling the spread of firearms, I would be very amazed, if the current legal framework does not prohibit the ready homemade guns. Also, at the present time is much cheaper and easier to acquire a "trunk" on the black market, you can use the 3D-printing. " So Makar, the idea that for 3D-printing tools have simply no legal basis, is not entirely clear. Governed by the laws of the ready at home criteria firearms at all — regardless of the Wiki Weapons, Even if they manage to find another 3D-printer.
"In my opinion, in the field of human mental supplies it does not cause problems, but from the standpoint of possible criminal responsibility and common sense of the situation is not so specific — says M. Powell, a lawyer with Baker Donelson in mental facilities. What this group wants to achieve, what kind of self-defense may be conducted speech that can not be achieved by means of legitimately acquired means of protection? "
Cody Wilson, the creator of the idea Wiki Weapons, a law student at the Texas Institute, insists that the project is "a blurring of differences between the real and the benefits of digital information" is a kind of "application for international kleptocracy that it came out of their control." Perhaps the least sense is the statement of Wilson that "the time has come at last 3D-printing."
So makarom if the project Wiki Weapons itself to itself is not illegal according to the existing legal framework, that this precedent will mean for the future of free disk imaging in a world where data can quickly transform into a physical object? As further it affects the rights of mental supplies?
"These files are from a legal point of view, the instrument are not" — says M. Weinberg. In a way, it's like "Table book anarchist." At the very information for themselves, usually illegal to do is hard enough. In this case, some information is simply a recipe for telling you how to make their own hands tool. And just because a web site will show you how to do something similar, does not make it illegal. It is not doing. " But later it totally could happen, of course, dependent on legislative initiatives that combat the alleged threat made guns in the "home".
"In many ways ahead of the development of laws — continues Weinberg. I'm constantly talking to politicians, that when you have new technology and it is not clear how they will be used, then the worst thing you can do — it's not a good option to present the upcoming developments, and later try different restrictions prevent it. Tom has two premises: first, 1-x, your bad option has never been realized, and you are just wasting time. But the most devastating is that these actions you will certainly forbid things that could be very useful and productive, but you are just not smart enough to think of them before. "
In general, this area will have a huge number of new questions. We can only hope that lawmakers stick is not bent and not sacrifice the positive potential of 3D-printing technology for the sake of illusory security guarantees.